David, the early years - Part 8
Eating the Consecrated Bread
17th December 2011
This week I begin with a warning: reading this may make you think some uncomfortable thoughts.
After David's victory over Goliath, King Saul promoted him in the army, and he won a number of great victories. Saul should have been pleased but, instead, he became jealous, to the point where he tried to kill David. Eventually, things got so bad that David ran for his life:
1 Samuel 21v1-10
David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, "Why are you
alone? Why is no-one with you?"
David answered Ahimelech the priest, "The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, 'No-one is to
know anything about your mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a
certain place.
Now then, what have you to hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find."
But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread to hand; however, there is some consecrated
bread here - provided the men have kept themselves from women."
David replied, "Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's things are holy
even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!"
So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence
that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.
Now one of Saul's servants was there that day, detained before the LORD; he was Doeg the Edomite, Saul's head
shepherd.
David asked Ahimelech, "Don't you have a spear or sword here? I haven't brought my sword or any other weapon,
because the king's business was urgent."
The priest replied, "The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, is here; it
is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you want it, take it; there is no sword here but that one." David
said, "There is none like it; give it to me."
That day David fled from Saul and went to Achish king of Gath.
Being on the run, David needed food and weapons. He was a man of God, and the first place he ran to was the House of God, which at that time was in the town of Nob.
When the priest asked David why he was there, and why he was alone, he lied. Saul hadn't charged him with a certain matter - Saul was trying to kill him. David was a man after God's own heart, but he was far from perfect. He should have told the truth, and trusted the priest to judge correctly what should be done. But many of us would lie, if we were scared enough. That doesn't make it OK, of course.
Then David asked for something to eat and the priest offered him some of the consecrated bread. And he took it. Here, it gets difficult for some Christians. Consider:
Leviticus 24v5-9
"Take fine flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah for each loaf.
Set them in two rows, six in each row, on the table of pure gold before the LORD.
Along each row put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be an offering made
to the LORD by fire.
This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as
a lasting covenant.
It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place, because it is a most holy part of their
regular share of the offerings made to the LORD by fire."
This passage clearly says that only the priests can eat the consecrated bread because it is a most holy part of their regular share of the offerings. So we know that the priest was suggesting to David that he do what was not lawful, and David took it upon himself to do what was not lawful. And this act of lawbreaking concerned something most holy. Now, we've already seen in this passage that David was not without sin, and we'll see it again, more than once, later in 1 and 2 Samuel. So we could try to explain this story in terms of David's sinfulness. The problem is, Jesus didn't do that.
Mark 2v23-28
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the cornfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some
ears of corn.
The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is
lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Jesus wasn't saying David was wrong to eat the consecrated bread. On the contrary, He was saying that David needed food for himself and his companions and that, when there was no other food available, David was right to eat the most holy bread.
It seems inescapable that Jesus was saying here that, in certain circumstances, it is right to break the Law.
Now to me, and probably to you, that doesn't sound like Jesus. And it's disturbing to us. Most good evangelicals would agree that we should read the Bible and do what it says. I certainly would. But Jesus is saying here that sometimes we shouldn't do what a particular passage says - in fact, that's exactly the point He's making. So Christian ethics are a bit more complicated than we might like to think.
I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I believe it's God-breathed and says exactly what God intends it to say. But I also believe that we're required to use our brains when we read it, and that some biblical commands can't always be obeyed at the same time as others. For example:
Romans 13v1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God
has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
This sounds utterly unequivocal. But the governing authorities in some countries require Christians to disobey other biblical commands, such as:
Matthew 28v19-20
... go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit,
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you
I believe that the command to preach the gospel to all nations outweighs the command to obey governments (of course, that's easy to me to say, because I'm not being persecuted).
When obeying all the biblical instructions that seem relevant to our situation is a logical impossibility, we must decide which biblical principles are most fundamental, and obey those. This is a very dangerous thing to say of course, because some may use it as an excuse to do whatever we find most fun, or most comfortable, or least likely to result in imprisonment or torture. But it's TRUE. And Jesus told us which are the most fundamental commandments:
Matthew 22v34-40
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
When we find that the only way to obey one command is to disobey another, we may be able to get some clarity by asking ourselves "What would Jesus do?" This is dangerous, too, because we can so easily imagine Jesus in terms of ourselves and our culture. But it may be the best guide we have. And Jesus would do what is most loving towards God and men.
Would Jesus let Himself and his friends starve, or would he eat consecrated bread, and so break Leviticus 24? He'd eat consecrated bread!
Wouldn't He?